If the project came to fruition, the plant would have been located adjacent to the state's first major wetlands restoration project, known as the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion. Additionally, their ruling found that the DNR violated state constitution and vacated the permit.

"This is basically a ruling for common sense," Robert Wiygul, an attorney handling the case said. "Looking at alternatives to a risky project like this one is a basic protection for citizens, and the DNR needs to take that responsibility seriously."

Earlier this year, the Army Corps of Engineers gave RAM Terminals LLC approval to begin clearing, grading and excavating the site. The location would have been used for the storage and shipping of large amounts of coal.

Since the idea was made public, some residents on the Westbank have expressed concern about the facility itself and the impact rail shipments would have on communities to the north and west.

The CGCC states that coal trains would have been needed to service the proposed terminal, which sparked criticism from nearby Jefferson Parish councils in Gretna and Westwego. Resolutions were passed in those communities against the terminal and its coal trains, because of public health and pollution problems, in addition to concerns about property values and delayed emergency response times.

In October, the Corps of Engineers denied a request for a public hearing on the plan. A spokesperson said residents concerns had been taken into consideration as part of the permitting process.

In addition to local residents, the lawsuit against the DNR was brought forward by the Gulf Restoration Network, the Sierra Club and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network. Each group is a member of the Clean Gulf Commerce Coalition.

"After long years of battling, this decision is a welcome gift for the people of south Louisiana whose air, water, and way of life are threatened by another dirty coal export terminal," said Devin Martin, an organizer with the Sierra Club. "Preserving the unique history, heritage, and natural resources of places like Ironton, Gretna, and our coastal marshes over the short-sighted interests of an out of state coal company is something that we can all agree on. We are glad to see that the district court agrees."

The CGCC said the ruling follow similar ones in the growing movement against coal exports. In August, a permit for a coal export facility in Oregon was denied, while four others also failed to pass in the Pacific Northwest and six in Gulf Coast states.